> First of all, I am not in the habit of collecting unreasonable
> ideas. That of course has not alway been the case. The weakness
> that you portray of science is it's ultimate strength.
...science is an efficient and effective way of gathering useful data
about the manipulable universe. Granted. There are, though, aspects
of both the universe and humyn experience which fall outside the
scope of scientific investigation. Exclusive reliance on scientific
paradigms limits the information which can be considered valid.
Further, neglect of transmitted experiential history in the form of
myth removes from the sphere of consideration much of the learning
accomplished by the species in the tens of thousands of years we had
minds before we had science.
...this is not to say that myth should be accepted literally or completely, it IS though a vast storehouse of knowledge and understanding gathered through often quite rigorous methodologies. The history of vast humyn insight doesn't begin and end with einstein (smartypants though he was) - visionaries and geniuses litter the floor of history - they just weren't operating in the same paradigmatic structure as we are at present in this hemisphere and so we need to work a bit to understand what they were saying.
> Intuition has nothing to do with logic.
...right. Intuition operates on a broader base than logic, which can only bring to consideration those facets of a situation that are open to discrete sybolization.
Intuition comes from a
> part of our brains that can communicate in ways other than
> conceptualization and ideation.
...right again. no argument here.
I dont dismiss intuition at all as
> a source but it is NOT what one does Reason with. Reason can
> assess the information that the intuitive senses transmit and
> incorporate it in the general picture.
...reason can do this, reason does this, reason is a useful tool. But if you're building a house do you rely exclusively on the hammer? No - you use the necessary tool for the job. Reason is one tool among many - the mind is a wonderful and complex construct.
We can have ill feelings
> and doubt when we are not paying attention to our intuitive senses
> and only=A0logic.
...why is that, do you suppose?
> Who says the structure of reality can't be tested. If one takes
> just a small peek at the research in particle physics, astronomy,
> and the latest cosmology you would not think that.
...actually, the research in particle physics, astronomy and recent cosmology is what led me to that conclusion. Schroedinger tells us that unfixed circumstanses collapse to set phenomena when the presence of an observer intrudes - when we investigate the deep structure of the manifold it shapes itself to fir the form of our minds. Heisenberg tells us that direct knowledge of some variables eliminates possible knowledge about other, related variables. Einstein tells us that the sequential order of time (which is an implicit assumption of the scientific cause-effect process) is an illusion brought about by our point of view within the cosmologic complex.
> Relativity are counter-intuitive.
...no. Things like relativity run counter to the ordered, reasonable logic of the scientific method. They're not counter-intuitive at all and have been incorporated into myth structures for thousands of years. The concept of the Net of Indra in Hindu mythology for example is a wonderul illustration of the quantum universe. The many paralells between the conclusions of quantum physics and Taoism have been discussed by many a physicist (Fritjof Capra springs immediately to mind).
It is hard to understand with
> anything but MATH!!!
It is hard to understand with
anything but MYTH!!!
> Examples can be found! Simple Newtonian Gravity works.
...in certain circumstances, on certain scales.
> Einstein got a hold of it, mass bent and warped space, but a ball
> still fell at the same rate!
...for what observer?
Now Relativity breaks down at the
> atomic level. We have entered the world of Quantum Physics. But
> they are ALL still right.
...how can they ALL be right if the conclusions from one contradict the conclusions of another? It's like saying copernicus and Ptolemy were both right - you can't have it both ways.
> No, I don't need myth. I am the hero, the villain, the god, the
> devil, the winner, the loser, the lover, the hater; the friend,
> the whole story.
...and without myth you would have no story at all.
> As I said, science is only the information and knowledge derived
> from constant interaction with physical reality. What we do with
> it is up to us. It is just another tool, not an end. Philosophy
> arises from our summation of what we "realize".
...ever consider the etymology of the word REALIZE?
> Metaphor should be recognised as just that. It is a crystalization
> that has meaning, no more, no less. Myths reflect our substance,
> not thereverse. It is simple literary sense and has no mystic
> strings attached.
...what do you mean by "mystic strings"?